How will a Conservative government be better?

[LadyC]

We already had laws regarding the storage and safe handling of guns. That the registry also made provisions for it is a moot point.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. You keep using that as your argument, conveniently ignoring the fact the law already made provisions for proper storage, etc. That's pretty much the definition of moot.

Then quit talking about how "you" had your chance, etc.

No, I won't.

You can't have it both ways, B. You can't claim it isn't a right/left issue while continuing to argue that it is.

Consulting the database is done after a crime has been committed, right?

No, it is also done before they go on a call.

sigh.
And the police go on a call.... when? After they've received a report that a crime has taken place or is about to.

So how does it prevent a crime from being committed?

See above.

ditto.

Sorry to hear about your Great Uncle, B. but his situation is hardly relevant here.

It is relevant, C. The government never confiscated his gun.

Still not relevant.

Can you say with certainty that the registry won't ever lead to confiscation?

Can you with certainty that Stephen Harper doesn't keep a goat chained up in his basement?

Your arguments are getting lamer.

So.... if the majority of Canadians, who are heterosexual, oppose SSMs, we shouldn't make them legal?

Are you trying to draw a comparison between homosexuals and gun owners? Will you be drawing a comparison between visible minorities and the free use of cross-bows next?

See above.
You tried to say that democracy means the majority gets their way. I'm saying that isn't always the case.
Some of us notice how you try to shift an argument when you get caught in a point you can't maintain.

We should be consulting more with those the laws DO affect.

Again, the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives, who now claim to represent gun owners, chose not to do that. They did not want to be consulted, they wanted confrontation.

It's a left/right issue. No it isn't. Now it is again.

Make up your mind, B.

 

[Jay]

no A rifle takes to long to get of your shoulder when your packing explosives and stakes and equipment :wink: His gun has saved him twice from grizzlys charging him .Both times they came out of no where 8O

So it is actually incompressible as to why someone wouldn't understand why hand guns are needed form time to time even.

I just don't believe the Rev is going to give us ammunition to help our cause.


The left likes to ban things. In Ontario the latest craze is Pitt Bulls. If they will ban dogs, how long will it be before they ban guns?

I think then since the left has proven itself to be anti-protection, they should be banned.

 

[SirKevin]

The left likes to ban things. In Ontario the latest craze is Pitt Bulls. If they will ban dogs, how long will it be before they ban guns?

I could be mistaken but I believe the NDP (the real left) opposed the ban...either way, I definitely oppose the ban personally, crazy right winger that I am.

 

[Jay]

I don’t know if the NDP opposed the ban. It would surprise me if they did, but they have surprised me before. If they did oppose it, good for them.

If they used one ounce of logic, they wouldn't have banned them, they would require a license to own one, and that license would have a prerequisite of dog/owner training.

The Pitt Bull ban is simply a protection issue.

Some people keep dogs like that to keep people away. The left doesn't like to keep away. The dogs bite them, and it hurts. Instead of keeping away, they ban the instrument that interferes with their nosiness.

I'm sort of being facetious here. Sorta....

 

[Reverend Blair]

I could be mistaken but I believe the NDP (the real left) opposed the ban...either way, I definitely oppose the ban personally, crazy right winger that I am.

You aren't mistaken, Kevin. The fact is that if the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives would have been more reasonable and willing to compromise, that the registry would have taken a completely different, less intrusive, and more effective form. They wouldn't help though. Instead they got Chuck Heston to come and tell us that we have a right, under some other country's constitution, to own assault weapons.

You keep using that as your argument, conveniently ignoring the fact the law already made provisions for proper storage, etc.

The provisions, and the requirements for reporting stolen guns, became stricter.

You can't have it both ways, B. You can't claim it isn't a right/left issue while continuing to argue that it is.

It's not having it both ways, it's pointing out that the divisive politics used by Harper and his rednecked pals are ineffective. The gun issue itself isn't left-right. The NDP managed, with hardly any members, to get provisions for natives into the legislation. The Reform Alliance got nothing done at all.

And the police go on a call.... when? After they've received a report that a crime has taken place or is about to.

And when they are walking into a house because they got a call for a domestic disturbance or because the kids were smoking a joint in the backyard, do you think that knowing that there is a gun on the premises might be helpful? The cops do.

ditto.

Ah...the worshippers of Rush.

Still not relevant.

Oh, why not? The government never confiscated his gun.

Your arguments are getting lamer.

Just replying in kind.

You tried to say that democracy means the majority gets their way. I'm saying that isn't always the case.

You are saying that choosing to own a firearm is the same as having been born gay.

It's a left/right issue. No it isn't. Now it is again.

It isn't a left/right issue. It's an issue of the divisive and ineffective tactics of the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives. Unless you are implying that their utter and complete incompetence comes from their political leanings instead of their perpetual lack of leadership.

A rifle takes to long to get of your shoulder when your packing explosives and stakes and equipment Wink His gun has saved him twice from grizzlys charging him .Both times they came out of no where

Then maybe he should be working with a partner, Mr. Mom. having to quick-draw on charging grizzlies with a handgun is not condicive to on the job safety.

 

[mrmom2]

Give me a break he owns the company and every employee has to comply with the laws to get one .Under your logic he has to pat somebody for protection 8O Sounds very left wing to me what other rights are you going to take away from us Rev ?Thats why Jack will never get elected your regulation writers and right takers you would clog things up so much with your laws we will all go bankrupt :wink:

 

[Jay]

You aren't mistaken, Kevin.

I think Kevin was talking about the NDP supporting or not supporting the Pit Bull ban in Ontario.....I think.

the registry would have taken a completely different, less intrusive, and more effective form.

So how do you go about making registering your guns "less intrusive"? Would I get to register my guns under mrmom's name or something?

They wouldn't help though. Instead they got Chuck Heston to come and tell us that we have a right, under some other country's constitution, to own assault weapons.

Sounds like they have a better constitution than we do, and Chuck was just rubbing it in....

We do have these rights, it’s just the left is eroding them, as per usual.

The provisions, and the requirements for reporting stolen guns, became stricter.

Doesn't sound like you need to register then though, you just have to place a phone call if they get stolen.

It's not having it both ways, it's pointing out that the divisive politics used by Harper and his rednecked pals are ineffective. The gun issue itself isn't left-right. The NDP managed, with hardly any members, to get provisions for natives into the legislation. The Reform Alliance got nothing done at all.

The only divisive maneuvering here is the left forcing the issue of creating lists of people with guns. The reaction to it isn't divisive, it’s the action itself. So if you support this sort of draconian measure, you are being divisive. Simple.

And when they are walking into a house because they got a call for a domestic disturbance or because the kids were smoking a joint in the backyard, do you think that knowing that there is a gun on the premises might be helpful? The cops do.

Gee, so they get a domestic disturbance call or a "hey I smell weed" call they need to run over to the gun registry file to see if there are any guns? Why? Why don't they look at the "he hasn't paid his taxes” file too, or the "he owns a pit bull" file. Or the “he wrote hate literature" file....it doesn't make any sense, and is presuming guilt before innocence.

How do they prepare themselves for this horrible revelation that there is a gun in the house?

Oh, why not? The government never confiscated his gun.

How long is it going to be before they get the bright idea of checking medical issues against the registry? It is a rather logical next step to have patients who are incapacitated have their doctors tell the police so they can be checked against the registry and if found to have weapons, that the police go and confiscate these weapons.

You are saying that choosing to own a firearm is the same as having been born gay.

Maybe some people have a predisposition to protect themselves? Not everyone was born otherwise and needs the cops to solve all their problems like good little socialists.

It isn't a left/right issue. It's an issue of the divisive and ineffective tactics of the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives. Unless you are implying that their utter and complete incompetence comes from their political leanings instead of their perpetual lack of leadership.

The R/A/C isn’t supporting stupid “keep lists of people with guns” day down at the stupid law factory. The left is divisive, and they have done a great job of alienating gun owners and cigarette smokers, because they are nosy, irritating and worship political correctness.

Then maybe he should be working with a partner, Mr. Mom. having to quick-draw on charging grizzlies with a handgun is not condicive to on the job safety.

Oh I see now. Let’s spend an additional 40k a year to have buddy with a partner (so they can both be eaten by the bear) instead of a $400.00 hand gun, and some training, because lefties out there just can’t understand “why any civilian needs to own a hand gun”. It is as silly as it gets.

From One Silly Sea, to the Other Silly Sea. Welcome to Canada.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think Kevin was talking about the NDP supporting or not supporting the Pit Bull ban in Ontario.....I think.

Either way...the NDP was far more effective at opposing the gun registry than the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives. At least the NDP accomplished something.

So how do you go about making registering your guns "less intrusive"? Would I get to register my guns under mrmom's name or something?

See? You have no ideas so you decided to play an all or nothing game. You walked away with nothing.

We do have these rights, it’s just the left is eroding them, as per usual.

There is no right to bear arms in Canada. Get that idea out of your head.

Doesn't sound like you need to register then though, you just have to place a phone call if they get stolen.

It's part of the same legislation.

The only divisive maneuvering here is the left forcing the issue of creating lists of people with guns.

The left never created that list though, Jay. The Liberals are decidedly on the right side of the political spectrum.

The reaction to it isn't divisive, it’s the action itself.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative reaction to everything is divisive. That's them way they play the game.

How do they prepare themselves for this horrible revelation that there is a gun in the house?

Ask them. Or just think about that old common-sense saying, "Forewarned is Forearmed."

How long is it going to be before they get the bright idea of checking medical issues against the registry?

If somebody has a mental illness I hope it's soon.

Maybe some people have a predisposition to protect themselves? Not everyone was born otherwise and needs the cops to solve all their problems like good little socialists.

Give it up, Jay. There is a huge difference between minority rights and your priviledge of owning a weapon.

Give me a break he owns the company and every employee has to comply with the laws to get one .Under your logic he has to pat somebody for protection

I thought private enterprise was all about creating jobs.

Sounds very left wing to me what other rights are you going to take away from us Rev ?

Gun ownership is not a right.

 

[mrmom2]

Either is protecting yourself in Canada this countrys laws are a joke :roll:

 

[Jay]

Either way...the NDP was far more effective at opposing the gun registry than the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives. At least the NDP accomplished something.

Yes it would seem they accomplished something, they allowed a particular race of people to be exempt from certain laws…..wow.

See? You have no ideas so you decided to play an all or nothing game. You walked away with nothing.

I support certain gun control laws. I do not support the intrusive, politically charged gun registry, so sure in that respect I believe it is an all or nothing game. I do have an idea however…quite writing stupid laws.

There is no right to bear arms in Canada. Get that idea out of your head.

Yes there is, it isn't written in the constitution, but neither is the right to own a business, so are you going to tell me that I don't have the right to do business in Canada, no you couldn't say that.

The Charter does say however....

"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

And depriving people of guns doesn't fall into the "except in accordance with the principals of fundamental justice."

It isn't part of the fundamentals of justice to take peoples guns, or any other personal property away from them.

I say it is against the Charter to suggest we don't have the right to bear arms because we have the right of security of the person. Simple.

The left never created that list though, Jay. The Liberals are decidedly on the right side of the political spectrum.

You are one of the only people I’ve ever heard say the liberals weren’t a left leaning party. I don't want to argue the position of the liberals in the political spectrum however....if the NDP is against list keeping, score 1 point for them. I just doubt it is true.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative reaction to everything is divisive. That's them way they play the game.

It maybe, but that doesn’t mean that the left’s stance on keeping lists of people with guns isn’t divisive. I suppose not everyone is willing to play stupid law ball, and denouncing the gun registry isn’t divisive.

Ask them. Or just think about that old common-sense saying, "Forewarned is Forearmed."

I don't talk to cops to often....But I gather from your statement, that it is good enough that they know, and no other action is taken. This is part of the reason I think the information is useless. What if there is a whole stack of unregistered guns in the house.....

If somebody has a mental illness I hope it's soon.

It is actually against the law for those types of people to own guns. The point, of coarse, is if your Uncle’s gun wasn’t confiscated by the government it is a mishap (unless it is pre-registry). If the registry worked, the feds would have come and got it, and that (what could have been a family heirloom) would have been taken by the cops and destroyed. So to argue the feds didn’t take the gun and say this proves the feds aren’t going to confiscate weapons isn’t a valid argument. Registration leads to confiscation, and I believe in the future will lead to confiscating the entire arsenal of guns in Canada.

Give it up, Jay. There is a huge difference between minority rights and your priviledge of owning a weapon.

I don’t think there is. If Gays are discriminated by not having the right to “marry”, my common law right of a thousand years to protect myself is as important if not more important, as it is a fundamental right of security of the person.

I thought private enterprise was all about creating jobs.

It isn’t, it is about freedom. Socialism concentrates on making jobs out of nothing. Free Enterprise is about the freedom to participate without to much restriction in the market place, and the right to make a living from it, and the expectation that the market is “free”.

Gun ownership is not a right.

I think I make a very good Charter case to say it is a right.

 

[mrmom2]

Thank god someone else gets out there 8O I would bet if someone broke into the Revs house and threatened him and his wife he might feel a little different about owning a gun As my new avatar says come try my place I will personally fill that person full of holes :wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

I support certain gun control laws. I do not support the intrusive, politically charged gun registry, so sure in that respect I believe it is an all or nothing game. I do have an idea however…quite writing stupid laws.

Your boys had every chance to change things. They chose not to.

Yes there is, it isn't written in the constitution, but neither is the right to own a business, so are you going to tell me that I don't have the right to do business in Canada, no you couldn't say that.

In that case I support the right of 8 year olds to own muscle cars and drive them on the public highways.

"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

You aren't being deprived of anything, Jay. By your own account you own guns. Nothing has been taken away from you.

You are one of the only people I’ve ever heard say the liberals weren’t a left leaning party.

You need to get out more...maybe talk to somebody who doesn't own a neck and a barn that are the same colour.

I don't talk to cops to often.

You should try it...a sure cure for hero worship.

It is actually against the law for those types of people to own guns.

And yet there he was, gun in hand.

The point, of coarse, is if your Uncle’s gun wasn’t confiscated by the government it is a mishap (unless it is pre-registry).

He bought it pre-registry, did as he was required, and all that prevented a mishap was my father taking it away from him.

If the registry worked, the feds would have come and got it, and that (what could have been a family heirloom)

I guess Grandma could have called the cops instead of Dad. She didn't though. No, it's not a family heirloom. It's a rifle.

would have been taken by the cops and destroyed.

That's where it ended up.

So to argue the feds didn’t take the gun and say this proves the feds aren’t going to confiscate weapons isn’t a valid argument.

It's at least as valid as your paranoia that your bird gun is going to be confiscated.

Registration leads to confiscation,

Funny...I've registered most of the cars I've owned and nobody has ever confiscated them, at least not without reason.

and I believe in the future will lead to confiscating the entire arsenal of guns in Canada.

I believe that aliens will come to earth and help me build Mower Henge one day. Assuming that the Conservatives don't come and steal my collection of junk lawn-mowers, of course.

If Gays are discriminated by not having the right to “marry”

By putting in those quotation marks, you've completely invalidated any argument you might have made.

my common law right of a thousand years to protect myself is as important if not more important, as it is a fundamental right of security of the person.

Of course it turns out that you don't have a valid argument anyway. Firearms ownership has been restricted under British common-law since the invention of firearms.

It isn’t, it is about freedom.

Like the freedom to lay people off even though you are making record profits?

I think I make a very good Charter case to say it is a right.

I think I'll have a beer. Sometimes the caps put up a pretty good argument. :wink:

 

[mrmom2]

So when somebody threatens you Rev you go by the word of law and turn the other cheek eh?Sounds an awful lot like a sheeple

 

[Jay]

"I think I'll have a beer. Sometimes the caps put up a pretty good argument."

Have two for me, and three for mrmom, we could all use it.

 

[mrmom2]

I'll be having my own after the kids soccer games :lol:

 

[Jay]

mrmom...I love the new avatar. Remind me to call first before I come over....

 

[Jay]

I'll be having my own after the kids soccer games :lol:

I had to go dry for awhile; long story.....So have a few for me boys.

 

[Reverend Blair]

So when somebody threatens you Rev you go by the word of law and turn the other cheek eh?

[sarcasm] Yup. I've always been meek and mild, never break any laws, and have absolutely no history of protest or violence. [/sarcasm]

Have two for me, and three for mrmom, we could all use it.

Get your own.

I'll be having my own after the kids soccer games

That's the spirit.

I had to go dry for awhile; long story.

We have time.

So have a few for me boys.

I actually had somebody say, "Have a few boys for me," in the same spirit.

 

[bluealberta]

Had to go away for a while to make enough money to send to Ottawa so the looney left can spend my money on their goofy theories.

Very interesting posts, and Rev, I see you are still on the schtick about the Reform not providing an alternative. There is a very simple reason why they did not:

THERE WAS NO REASON, THERE WERE ENOUGH PROGRAMS IN PLACE.

BTW, folks, the Rev thinks the CBC is a right wing media outlet, so saying that the Liberals are right wing fits into his extreme left viewpoint nicely.

Regarding gun control, which I agree with, by the way, just not this version which was unncessary and expensive, the main argument about gun control is that we "don't want to be like the big bad US". Just reviewed a chart of murder rates from the LIbrary of Parliament that showed comparisons for murder rates in the US, Canada, and a comparison for the northwestern United States and the Canadian Prairies. The NW US states have a much higher level of gun ownership than the Candian Prairies. The murder rates between 1961 and 2003 between the NW US states and Canadian Prairies is virtually indentical, if anything, the Canadian rate may be higher, but only slightly. So, to say that higher gun ownership leads to higher crime, at least in our part of the world, is untrue. In fact the NW US states rate is also about the same as the total Canadian rate, and at times, even lower. So, this chart proves that "gun availabilty does not increase crime". Further, murder rates in the entire US started dropping dramatically in the mid-90's and continue to do so even with Darth Bush running the US, according to this chart, which I don't think can be accused of coming from either a left wing or right wing bias. Finally, the Library provided information which showd that "incidences of both property crime and violent crime-some of which involved guns and some of which didn't-also numbered marginally LOWER in the gun-friendly US border states". The conclusion of this article was that there are many issues, including social, demographic, and economic variables that affect crime, and that gun ownership does not automatically increase crime.

 

[Reverend Blair]

THERE WAS NO REASON, THERE WERE ENOUGH PROGRAMS IN PLACE.

Which is why most of Canada was up in arms demanding that something be done.

BTW, folks, the Rev thinks the CBC is a right wing media outlet, so saying that the Liberals are right wing fits into his extreme left viewpoint nicely.

Not exactly the way I'd put it, but then Ralph gave all the money to the oil companies instead of putting it into education so I guess we'll just have to accept your ignorance.

Regarding gun control, which I agree with, by the way, just not this version which was unncessary and expensive, the main argument about gun control is that we "don't want to be like the big bad US"

No, actually. The main point was that there were Canadians being killed by guns.

The NW US states have a much higher level of gun ownership than the Candian Prairies.

You should have a look comparing populated areas. Try NY and TO. Detroit and Windsor. Vancouver and Seattle. If you get to pick an and choose, so do we.

So, to say that higher gun ownership leads to higher crime, at least in our part of the world, is untrue.

Name a city in Montana as big as Calgary. Edmonton? Regina? Guess what? Winnipeg has a higher crime rate than Bugfuck, North Dakota. So what?

Supper is done. Guns don't kill people, morons with guns kill people.